Soul

I certainly hope so. I think we really need Walker at this point. He's a veteran, and while his fielding can be spotty at times I like him better than other potential options unless something really wild happens.

I just don't see Maddux as a starter who will provide an entire season's worth of quality starts anymore. He's taking until July/August to ratchet it up now. Don't get me wrong, I hope he does well. If we have to rely on Maddux as our 3rd starter though, I'm thinking it's trouble. Thanks for trying to talk me off the ledge. I am very worried. Most people around here know be to be a worry-wart though :lol:

With no movement on several pressing issues with this team. This is sooooo like last year, is it not? Do nothing, do nothing, do nothing. I understand it's difficult, but the silence is becoming very worrisome. I want competitive baseball next Summer. Don't we all? We currently need: SS 2B (assuming Walker's really gone) RF 4th Starter (Williams not consistent enough) 5th Starter (Rusch really not good enough) I count 5 real holes on this team. 2 more if you count these factors: LF -- Murton's just a half-season removed from rookie status, not really a solid option no matter how good we hope he'll be. And I do have hopes for this kid. 3rd Starter -- Wood won't be ready until June, May if we pray and God grants a miracle. So we can go ahead and say we've got 7 holes or positions we need to address. I'd be happy if we would just address RF and 2B, and consider us "competitive." I guess at this point the question should be raised. Are Hendry and the Cubs brass going to address these issues? Because it sure feels like they aren't going to at all. Before you all go jumping on me for being too negative, I certainly like the fact that Hendry signed a couple bullpen arms. Much needed, even if we did overpay. And Pierre, while not the greatest, at least gives us a someone who we can honestly say fits the mold of a leadoff guy, even if does have flaws. It's not that there has been NO movement, it's just that we have so many holes all of a sudden, and I'm wondering if the Trib is privately conceeding that '06 is a lost cause. It does seem that way to me.

Once the Cubs see Wrigley packed for every game in '06 even though they never even tried to build a winner, the Trib execs are gonna go "Ooooohhh, yeah. Now I remember, we're the Cubs. We don't have to try!"

I think we need to prepare for the idea that Prior & Wood will not be able to provide 2, 3 years in a row of injury-free pitching. If they can, then that's wonderful. But this is madness, just counting on it to happen when the track record clearly shows they aren't likely to do it. Has Hendry ever heard of a backup plan? How about the term "safety net?" Because the way he runs his offseasons, it doesn't seem like he does.

I'd argue that the Bears are FAR more exciting. The defense (last Sunday aside) is incredibly fun to watch. The Bulls are alright. I was really excited when they had Curry in addition to all this other talent. I'm still excited about them, but those feelings have been tempered a bit. Deng is starting to show signs of taking the next step. I like what the Bulls are doing, but the whole Curry fiasco was a major step backward for the franchise IMO. They can still continue improving if they find some kind of solution down low. And I think they'll continue to search. I'll usually watch the Bulls when they're on, unless it's a terrible matchup. I will rarely miss a Cubs game if they are on, no matter who they play. And I plan my entire Sunday around the Bears. That should let you know where I stand with each team.

The trouble with this theory is, we have 3 holes to fill in the outfield, not just 1. It's not like Pie couldn't come up and play LF or RF, depeding on whether Murton succeeds or not. Or, Pierre could shift. The original quote seems to assume that if Pie is ready in 2007, there's no room for Pierre. This is just simply not true.

Pie in the minors playing everyday is better than Pie in the majors to "fill the gap" in RF by being Macias' backup 4 or 5 days out of 7. I can't believe anyone is even considering Macias as an RF starter.........on ANY day. But it appears we have sunk to that low a level.

We'll see what the next two months bring. If spring training comes and there's no real option, and Pie is looking good, I would have trouble coming up with a good reason not to bring him up.

Why don't we just bring up Pie and throw him to the fire? Is he really that far away from being "ready?" Maybe a better question is, if we're going to field a junk RF'er anyway then what's the difference? Can you really "ruin" a good prospect by playing him young? Yeah, I know.....CPatt. But who can say: maybe he was always going to stink no matter how much grooming he got.

I'm pretty concerned about our immediate future. Honestly I don't know what the long term brings----I hope a World Series championship. If we get there by dismantling our present team or by adding to what we already have, I'm not sure it matters so much. If this ballclub doesn't perform this year, some kind of philosophical or managerial adjustment will need to be made. I'm not sure what that is, at least not yet. And I'm really torn between the two prevailing philosophies in baseball. The first: acquire solid veterans through free agency, spending alot of money but winding up with a team of superstars. That's great, but how frustrating is it when those vets decide their paychecks mean more than winning? Pretty frustrating. Paying $10 million / year for a guy who obviously doesn't give 100% is hard to take. The second: build your minor leagues and win with fresh, young talent. Again, this has worked for some teams. But many others find themselves suffering through growing pains and the nightmare of mistake-ridden baseball day in & day out. It's not easy to raise children into productive adults. Maybe a combination of both is best, but acquiring vets usually takes prospects, and keeping prospects usually means you can't acquire vets. So how do we do it? I don't know. Maybe if I would have seen a Cub team win a championship in my lifetime, I would be able to answer. 8)

Glad to hear about the new bathrooms. Everyone knows that's been necessary for awhile. On the hyperbole. I do like to use it to make my point. I'm not shy about admitting it. However, the statement in question was really just supposed to be funny---I also like to elicit a few laughs if I can. Sorry for the confusion. Obviously I'm not going to abandon Wrigley field because they tore down the bleachers and rebuilt them. I'm sort of with SEC 511: they should just admit they're doing a piece-by-piece full refurb on the place. The Trib doesn't think the fans can stand it. I think they can----and they'll appreciate it more in the long run if they know up front what the WHOLE plan is instead of finding out little by little that the Tribune company has been hiding from them. Ultimately though, it's either going to be a brand new ballpark that looks like Wrigley, or else an old, rusty place clad in shiny new armor. I think I'd prefer the former. "Real" new is better than "fake" new.

I thought Wrigley was on the NROHP(National Register of Historic Places), or at least Wrigleyville? if that is so, there is no way they would let them do more then 50% remodel at once....a good portion of the building must remain as was.... I agree with your thoughts though, soul, sometimes saving something is more detrimental to what it once was, the value comes in the fact that current and future visitors can have connections in there on realm. IE, sometimes buildings, materials loose their meaning for the old generation, but suddenly find themselves re-connected witha new generation, and sometimes for intirely new reasons......and for me, that in of it self is enough value..... btw, Wrigely is listed: http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/IL/Cook/state10.html I love it. So basically the Government has decreed that the Cubs must suffer in a bad, mutated, re-bricked ballpark with smelly bathrooms. This is great! :lol:

Hendry is going to regret a lot of things....

Based on the way the Trib Co markets the ballpark rather than the team, I don't think they have any intention of attempting to build a new stadium in the suburbs, or anywhere else. I do find it interesting that they sold this project as a "renovation" and "expansion", and then proceeded to tear down 75% of the bleachers and rebuild them. It wouldn't shock me to see them do the same thing to the existing upper deck in a couple of years (citing the crumbling concrete as a reason) and put in a completely new upper deck with more skybox capacity. And then a couple of years later, renovate the lower deck (which, in my opinion, needs the least amount of upgrading). They'd get many of the financial advantages of a new ballpark, without losing the marketing advantage of playing in a historic stadium. And most new ballparks are being built in the 40-45000 capacity range anyway, so Wrigley's wouldn't need to be increased at all. I think that's right. Eventually they're going to have to go for the skyboxes to bring in the big $$$. Even if they don't need it, it's the Tribune so I wouldn't be suprised to see it. Funny thing is, there are probably only a scattered few of us who are aware how extensive the bleacher "renovation" really is. Most people aren't paying attention, nor will they until and unless they actually go to a game. The vast majority of folks still think it's a minor tweak, and probably always will. I've got to hand it to the Tribune, they are good at what they do. From my perspective though, I'm seeing the fans get a ballpark that doesn't resemble their childhood memories anyway, yet still maintains all the bad things about having an old ballpark. It's more of a lose/lose for me and it gets worse each time they make a change without going "all the way." I've been to Wrigley dozens & dozens of times, like most people here. I know every dimension in & out. If it isn't going to be the ballpark I've known for my whole life, I'd rather just build a state-of-the-art facility and enjoy the better amenities.

I understand, but they're basically building a new shiny shell around rusty, dirty old innards. Couldn't they just refurb the whole site to look like Wrigley and wind up with pretty much the same thing, except it would be more structurally sound and probably have less-stinky bathrooms and better amenities? I guess I'm just wondering at what point would it have been better to just do the whole job instead of piecemeal. Eventually they're going to have to anyway. The best reason I can think of to do it the current way is to try and trick the fans into thinking it really isn't being done in the first place. Strange, I know. But I'm starting to think that's kinda the idea behind all of this.

Would you trade Pie for Huff? If not, why? I'm curious why everyone's gotten the idea that Pie is untouchable. I wouldn't, because I don't think Huff is that good (based on his declining stats from last year). Would you trade him for anyone outside of a "superstar"? Probably not. OK, that's cool. Then I can draw a few conclusions from this (I think): 1) Pie needs to be brought up now to the Major League level, where he will likely not be ready yet and will struggle for awhile. ~or~ 2) Pie is not ready for that, so he stays down. We aren't going to improve very much through prospect-style trades. I'm assuming we don't have much else of value in the minors, which I realize isn't totally accurate but is probably in the ballpark. 3) If Pie can't be brought up now, and we can't improve much through trades from our minor leagues, then the logical conclusion from this, given the sorry state of the free agent market this year, is that we are in rebuilding mode. I mean--not totally like the Marlins or some other teams, but rebuilding in the sense that we cannot realistically expect contention this year.

Would you trade Pie for Huff? If not, why? I'm curious why everyone's gotten the idea that Pie is untouchable. I wouldn't, because I don't think Huff is that good (based on his declining stats from last year). Would you trade him for anyone outside of a "superstar"?

Would you trade Pie for Huff? If not, why? I'm curious why everyone's gotten the idea that Pie is untouchable.

Yep, but you ignored quoting the part of my post where I said that. Thanks for that! Apologies. But over the past three seasons Bradley has missed approximately a full season's worth of games, and it wasn't because he was platooned. I would have been disappointed to see the Cubs trade for him. Not nearly as disappointed as I'll be when we sign Jones, but still... At this juncture, I was sorta hoping for a trade combo that netted Huff and Bradley or Floyd and Bradley. Bradley, because he wouldn't take that much to land, and Huff or Floyd, because they have lefty power to balance the heart of the line up. Between Huff, Bradley, Pierre and Murton, the outfield is deep and set, with Mabry and possibly Hairston who could also play on a very rare occasion. At this point, I'd settle for just Huff. Just............do something about our OF Mr. Hendry. Please.

Yes, isn't it terrible when people say something is bad when it's bad and good when it's good? How dare they! I *insist* people around here start calling bad things good.

Yeah, i hate those people that criticize him when he does something stupid, and praise him when he does something good. I mean, that's just kooky talk! OMG, I'm still laughing at your sig pic. Funniest thing I've seen in ages. Thx :lol:

Hah! Now *that* would be the capper. If Payton comes here the only debate will be, what's the more anti-climactic signing? Burnitz in '05 or Payton in '06?

Everyone here knows deep down inside. Deeeeeeeep down in the furthest recesses of our Cubbie-Blue souls: Nomar will go injury-free next year with someone else. Oh yes!! You know it will happen. So do I. Yet, the bitter truth remains. If he stays here, he'll be injured by May 15th and sit the bench until we're mathematically eliminated just like always.

Best quote on that Cubbie blog: Tried to say they're basically tearing down the outer-half of Wrigley, but nobody wanted to listen. And they've already re-done the infield seats, so that's nothing like it used to be either. The point? It isn't Wrigley anymore, folks. Why not build an actual new ballpark then? Wrigley field, as we all grew up with, is now gone. So why the charade?